1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are We Setting A Dangerous Precedent Here?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Hux, Oct 21, 2006.

  1. Hux

    Hux Active Member

    I know it's being done to combat the insurgency here in Iraq, but it seems to me like we're setting a dangerous precedent. Local civilians here (at least in Baghdad) are restricted to one AK47 w/ 2 mags per house. No other firearms of any kind or additional mags are allowed. And if the local decides to dispute the confiscation when we search their house (we do many random searches), they are detained. Are we headed down the wrong path here or is this an issolated event that will have no effect on the preservation of our 2A rights?
  2. xd9fan

    xd9fan Well-Known Member

    wow just wow
    Given world history, what do you think?
    Would we as U.S. citizens put up with this crap? We already put up with to much crap like this here at home, and its not from a foreign country's military.

    Did the Bush administration even just show them OUR Bill of Rights? Wont doubt it if they did not.
    Bush's talk about "speading democracy" makes me wonder what he is doing. I have heard alot of lip service on "freedom" even the word "liberty".......Is the Bush administration even educating the Iraq people on our Bill of Rights?? In the 3 years since we having been over there I have not heard one peep on printing mass copies of our Bill of Rights and even just showing it to "the people"

    I think the public here at home implies that he is spreading our Individual liberty-based system....with a Bill ofRights.

    I wonder if its just Govt-based democracy (were Rights come from Govt). That he is "spreading"
    Your post, if its true would fall in line with this thinking.

    (Even if Bush was showing them the Bof R and had mass education on it.......is this what we as a nation want to be doing....world cop and world educator??)

    wow do the Swiss have it right....
  3. Hux

    Hux Active Member

    It could be that the Iraqi gov wanted this and we're simply enforcing it, I don't know (not that thats much better).
  4. crazed_ss

    crazed_ss Well-Known Member

    Iraq is a "unique" situation dont you think?

    I think it's a great idea.

    If they were allowed to have unlimited guns, they could simply have an armory full of AK-47's in one house. The insurgents wouldnt even have to worry about hiding their caches of arms.

    Maybe after this "war" is resolved, they'll let Iraqis have as many guns as they want, but right now we need to deny the enemy easy access and storage of weapons while also allowing normal Iraqis some form of self defense.

    At least they can have one AK a two mags. I cant have any AK's :rolleyes:
  5. Outlaws

    Outlaws Well-Known Member

    Two mags huh? Can they still have unlimited ammunition for those two mags or is 60 rounds all you get?

    At least we are letting them have guns...and select fire to boot. Hopefully they get unrestricted access when we leave.
  6. Hux

    Hux Active Member

    ammo limit

    I haven't been told of any limit on ammo not in the mags, but we also have yet to come across anyone w/ more than the 60 rnds. most ppl just have one mag
  7. TallPine

    TallPine Well-Known Member

    Um, yeah ... :rolleyes: (but of course it is un-patriotic to say so :uhoh: )

    Maybe you're just getting trained for operations after you get home :scrutiny:
  8. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

    The US set the Iraqi govt up based on a european model.
  9. redneck2

    redneck2 Well-Known Member

    Uhhhh....you forgot one small matter. Iraq isn't our country. They made up their own Constitution. Maybe they don't want our Bill of Rights. There are a lot of countries we deal with that don't have our form of government.
  10. Fosbery

    Fosbery Well-Known Member

    Wow, your pretty screwed if you upgraded to the AKM :p
  11. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Well-Known Member

    2 mags? are those large banana clips or small ones are they drums?
  12. Wesker

    Wesker member

    It's a seperate country that we don't control or own. Our BOR does not apply there. While their constitution will probably be glaringly different than ours because of the Islam religion it's pretty silly to think that the rights you're accostumed to back home should be applied over there.

    I can sympathize with their reaction. Those guns are their property and they probably had it long before the infidels showed up and started ruining their lives with their policing action. No one expects Iraq to be America 2.0 because it won't be, no one is that stupid. A Democracy is a Democracy, and at it's heart it has a constitution written by its people. Hell, Iraq could take our Constitution and write it bass akwards, just as long as the people voted for it.
  13. Doug14

    Doug14 member

    What if they want a rifle in standard NATO? Or a parabellum pistol? Seems pretty arbitrary.

    Why not just limit them to one magazine? Keeps it simple.
  14. Anti Gun

    Don't forget that the US military is virulently anti gun. One could easily assume Sarah Brady was in charge of issuing weapons, magazines and ammunition.

    Only those way out on the pointy end are allowed weapons with magazines and ammunition. Just imagine the arguments at top brass level about allowing "civilians" any guns at all.
  15. River Wraith

    River Wraith Well-Known Member

    you sure about that? I can't imagine the real US military attacking US citizens and taking their guns. I can see the national guard doing it. Then again, think of the Bonus army...
  16. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    I worry that Tallpine may be right.

  17. longeyes

    longeyes member

    It appears so. And the question--which should be asked publicly, if one could find a media type who cares--is why? I'd love to hear Bush shuffle around that one.
  18. vynx

    vynx Well-Known Member

    definetly a unique situation - what other army in the history of the world ever let the occupied country posses such firepower? It didn't happen in WWi or WWII thats for sure.

    This is a unique situation because we are not fighting the Iraq army but terrorists and at the same time the sunni and shiite factions are having an uncivil-war (maybe kurds too)? Ther uncivil war is terrorism so the rules have to change.

    I don't think this applies to homeland USA because it would have to be another coutries army making these demands on US citizens and that I don't foresee happening.
  19. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Well-Known Member


    The new Iraqi constitution (which I think the "allies" pretty much wrote and handed to them) does not include any RKBA provision. I was more than a little ... "upset" ... when I realized that.

    That's where it gets interesting. Technically, we are no longer "occupiers," because (technically) we have formally handed over power to the newly-(re)constituted government of Iraq. At this point we are not (technically) "occupiers," but I suppose something more like "allies" who are (so the story line goes) "assisting" the fledgling government.

    Yeah, that's it ... we're "assisting."
  20. zoom6zoom

    zoom6zoom Well-Known Member

    All I have to say is... April 15, 1775. Lexington, MA. They were coming to take my forebears' guns, and it was another Molon Labe moment. The rest is history.

Share This Page